Daily News

Atheists and The Church of the One Truth (12897)

… And nothing but the Truth: atheism and the audacity of the Catholic worldview, Part 2

In the Church of the One Truth there are no ceremonies, no sacraments, no saints. There are no cathedrals, no worship, no mass. There are no sacred books, sacred music, sacred creeds. There is no morality, no accountability, no judgment.

In the Church of the One Truth, there is simply one solitary and singular truth. This singularity is the explanation for all times, all places, all things and all people. The sole truth of the Church of the One Truth is that the universe in its entirety is simply material. Everything is material, physical, observable. In other words, everything is simply one of two things. Everything is either matter or energy. All things are entirely tangible. Or, they don’t exist at all.

The Church of the One Truth reduces every facet and feature, every aspect and dimension of the universe and all it contains to a solitary physical truth that manifests as either matter or energy. And, because everything is either matter or energy, all existence, all life forms, all human experience are simply the product of matter and energy, an effect of the material of the universe.

For us as human beings, this means all thought, all emotion, all reason, logic and common sense are not actually real. They are illusions. Yet, these illusions we all experience as real, these illusions we use to explore, manage and change our environment have no actual reality whatsoever. For if all that exists is matter and energy, then these experiences we find so inherent to human life are simply and profoundly illusions, illusions brought on by biochemical activity. They are simply neural activity of a physical nature and nothing more.

In the Church of the One Truth, human experience becomes an illusion. To this Church, the ultimate and the final, real reality of these aspects of human experience are simply the product of neural activity, electronic impulses that are only and completely biochemical, the product of matter and energy.

Within this sole dogma, everything is lost. Everything becomes an illusion. Right and wrong disappears in the face of the relentless logic of biochemistry. Beauty also follows suit. Even logic, reason and common sense are destroyed by the irresistible invasion of the materialist truth of matter and energy. The nobility and depravity of the human experience — love, compassion, self-sacrifice, as well as hatred, revenge and selfishness, all are completely and conclusively conquered by this biochemical creed. The solitary dogma of the Church of the One Truth leaves humanity wandering in a worldly wasteland without the ways or means of validating human experience or for finding real meaning and hope.

Also, as an unavoidable and relentless result of the materialist truth, The Church of the One Truth also becomes the Church of the Infinite Illusions. For if everything in human experience is the result of biochemistry, then everything in the universe and in human experience becomes an illusion because its ultimate reality is merely biochemical. If all things are ultimately material (matter and energy), then all things must be material. All human things, tangible and intangible, are not what they are, not what they seem, not what we experience. They are merely biochemistry.

The insidious, irresistibility of this relentless truth has severe and catastrophic implications for collective human society, too. When morality and reason are matters of biochemical activity alone, morality and reason can provide no real basis for law or for government. When morality and reason are lost to the advance of the biochemical truth, how can power be constrained? How can governmental deliberations be grounded in and sustained by reason and morality? They must inevitably degenerate into politics and self-interest.

But, who are the believers in the One Truth? The informed members of the Church of the One Truth are typically atheists and convinced agnostics. Atheists believe there is no God and agnostics believe there is no way to know if there is a God. They both argue from the standpoint of physical and tangible evidence and will accept no proof other than facts of this type.

Many atheists and agnostics operate as if there was some real reality to the human experience, but when pressed by circumstance or argument, they usually choose to affirm the absence of real morality and the illusion of all human experience. In matters of morality and the purpose of life, they appeal to personal perception and preference and the practicalities of public life, while denying the existence and substance of the objective moral order and its inherent practical principles.

But, there are not nearly as many convinced atheists and agnostics as there are those who adhere to atheistic views just because they fail to explore the flaws in the materialist dogma or because they do not recognize the severe limitations of atheism’s materialistic view of life and living. These people believe in the basic idea of materialism, but they fail to think things through and they often live inconsistent with their undeveloped beliefs.

They are also influenced greatly by our culture, a culture based on materialist beliefs or influenced by them. For many outside the Christian faith live with one foot in a moral universe and the other in the materialistic one. They live their lives oscillating between the materialist view of human nature and a more spiritual and moral one. And, they are often confused by the clash of ideas these different views of the world entail. This confusion is evident in many philosophical and practical ways.

They miss the importance of basic suppositions and the errors of a materialist worldview. For instance, the limitation of materialism begins with a materialist’s appeal to reason. Remember, reason is just a biochemical event according to the Church of the One Truth. When the Church of the One Truth appeals to reason, it appeals to an illusion. This is an act based on a delusion for an atheist, because he knows reason is only a series of biochemical events. Or, it is a disingenuous appeal designed to persuade others.

When reason is really biochemistry, then, as an atheist, using reason to make your case is a flagrant and fatal flaw in your argument. It is an invalid argument because it relies on a reality and reasoning that does not exist within atheism’s materialistic view of the universe.

On a practical level, according to the Church of the One Truth, our mind and our emotions are no longer real either.

For instance, love no longer exists in a solely material universe. For our sensations of love that prompt our loving behavior have no actual reality. They are merely biochemical events. So, next time you hug your spouse or your children or your friends, remember the real and only reality of that act and that feeling is biochemistry. You are just a lump of matter and energy. And, so are your loved ones, a temporary configuration of the material of the universe.

In the end, the Church of the One Truth is the Church of the Infinite Illusions. This is inescapable based on how atheism defines itself and its view of reality. In the Church of the One Truth, there is no real morality, only cultural norms and societal expediencies. There are no commandments, no real rules for life and living, no objective and transcendent moral principles to make them hesitate or to reflect.

As Catholics, it is our job to appeal to atheists’ personal human experience, the experience they do not accept. And, to inform them of their error and persuade them to consider the truth of the Catholic faith, a faith of many truths for life and for living, a faith that validates the human experience in its fullest sense, a faith that edifies the human mind and heart, a faith that brings hope and love into the very heart and society of mankind.

Frank Cronin, formerly an avowed atheist, writes from eastern Connecticut. He has a master’s degree in theology from Regent University. His post-master’s study includes Harvard, Columbia and Holy Apostles College and Seminary. He was received into the Catholic Church in 2007. Part 1 of the series may be found here. Next: “Quidditch and the Truth.”)

Comments

Franciscan,
I am not asking you to take it on my authority. I am an atheist. I talk to a lot of atheists. I read about atheism. Why would I need doctrine to know what atheism is? These columns are attempting to make atheism into something that is unrecognizable to actual atheists. It’s a dishonest attempt to define it out of existence. It’s a rhetorical illusion and nothing more.
There is room for debate about what atheism means, but it’s a pretty narrow debate among atheists. I know because I’m am reading the actual atheists who are having this debate. The debate centers around this question: Is atheism the belief that gods don’t exist, is it the belief that gods at least most-likely don’t exist, or is it the simple absence of belief in gods? The latter would mean that anyone who has never thought about gods would be an atheist.
I can say that this column is not an honest treatment of atheism because I have plenty of experience with atheism, and this author’s treatment is completely foreign to any understanding of atheism I have ever encountered, and, if you’ll read the comments, it’s pretty strange-looking to other atheists here, too.
Don’t ask Rush Limbaugh to define “feminism.” Don’t ask Sean Hannity to define “liberalism.” Don’t ask a pro-choicer to define pro-life. And don’t look to Frank Cronin for a definition of atheism.

Posted by Franciscan on Saturday, Jul 13, 2013 12:16 PM (EDT):

Whatever atheism *is* according to the doctrine of Eric Dutton.

Posted by Eric Dutton on Monday, Sep 19, 2011 12:39 AM (EDT):

Well, I read the third installment. It doesn’t look like he has salvaged an argument our of this wreck. He’s merely decorated it with a bit of poetic sentiment.
This is, in no way, an honest treatment of atheism.

Posted by Serpico on Friday, Sep 9, 2011 9:56 AM (EDT):

Coincidentally, I just noticed that there’s a short article about the existence of Jesus here at NCRegister:

Serpico, thank you for your response. This is the kind of thing I came here for.
Let me start with your claim that I’ve been inconsistent, then I’ll move on to Cronin.
I don’t think I’ve been inconsistent so much as I’ve been not as clear as I should have been. I have made claims about what atheism is: not believing in gods. I still claim that that’s about it. My claim about hierarchy was not that atheism rejects it, but that atheism doesn’t have to contain this idea. To say that atheism rejects hierarchy would contradict what I was saying. My point, though, was that theists often make an assumption about the atheist’s world view that doesn’t necessarily apply. There’s no reason to make this assumption. Again, atheism isn’t theism-minus-gods. I do believe that an atheist who believes that humans are at the top of a hierarchy of value is still an atheist. Anyone who doesn’t believe in gods is an atheist, no matter what else they believe or reject.
When I described ex-atheists who were “rebellious, arrogant, lost, angry, bitter, licentious, and resentful” and said, “That’s not atheism,” I didn’t mean that your aren’t an atheist if you are those things, I meant that you can’t define atheism that way; you can’t assume that atheism equals rebellion, arrogance, etc.
What I said about lying is that SEEMS like he’s lying about something because of the absurdity of his claims. But then I explained what I thought was really going on instead.
So, I will admit to some ambiguous writing, but I stand by my points.

As for Cronin…
You wrote: “You might consider the possibility that you’re missing something, not comprehending the arguments entirely or that future material may answer some of your complaints.”

Yes, I could be missing something. I don’t think I am. I will answer anyone who can point out what I’m missing, though.
I understand that he’s trying to draw out a philosophy to it’s logical conclusion. But, as I’ve said, he is starting with a philosophy that is not relevant to his subject. No one (a very small minority of outlier oddballs excepted) believes in the kind of materialism that he uses as the basis for his entire argument. Cronin is doing the same thing with abstractions that other theists do with hierarchy: he begins with a religious world view and subtracts the religion.

But a materialist can believe in love and reason without contradicting herself. If you insist on defining love in religious terms, then no, an atheist can’t believe in love, by YOUR definition. But there is no reason to define love, reason, thought, or any other human experience in religious terms.
This problem seems glaring to me, and it’s at the very heart of Cronin’s argument. Maybe I am missing something, but it would have to be something huge.
The only thing left is, as you said, that there may be something in the next installment that pulls it all together. Maybe he will make something of this mess, but it would have to be a masterful work of art. You can’t build a conventional structure on a foundation as weak as this one.

Posted by rover serton on Thursday, Sep 8, 2011 9:11 PM (EDT):

(my appologies, I said I was out but I was called back in)

Serpico:

I stand by my comparison to Santa and Jesus, we just don’t know anything about Santa’s mother. I am an atheist (since I live in the LP of Michigan, those in the upper part call us all trolls, we live UNDER the Mackinaw bridge) and I do enjoy banter with Catholics:-) I was not bothered that my Mom and Dad lied to me about both. My son less so. He said re: Santa “Dad, there is no Santa, no one would want that job”.

RE: the resurection. Making the claim of re-animation from an empty hole. That is amazing. No body so he must be alive? No one recognized Jesus after he “died” I.E. Doubting Thomas and the road to Damascus. That after he spent time with these people for 3-4 years solid. Unbelievable

W.L. Craig is excellent at what he does, I’ve watched many of his debates. He is not a theologian but he is a very effective apologist. I personally don’t find his arguements compelling, especially how the genocide and killing women that weren’t proven virgins on their wedding night was not what suggested by the OT.

It is embarrasing to only quote the last part of one of your url’s but it says it all: “There is, as we saw, one good reason for not believing in God: evil. And God himself has answered this objection not in words but in deeds and in tears. Jesus is the tears of God.” OMG! What an arguement. Full disclosure, I didn’t listen to the 76 minute audio.

What I “claimed” was, there are alot of people on this blog MUCH smarter than I am (I have a 134 IQ btw but that means diddly). I just don’t understand, using the available evidence, why you don’t believe in Santa (a lie your parents told you) but do in God/Jesus (also something your parents told you).

I was not going to reply to your statement “I agree with Oregon that rover seems like a classic case of the emotional atheist.” If you knew me, you would see one of the happies people. No worries. What does “Classic case of an emotional atheist” mean? How Classic?

You are obviously a very smart educated person, how can you believe what you believe without any evidence except the greatly contradited bible and 33,000 different flavors of your religion?

I won’t reply unless you ask me to. I’m out, be well all.

Rover.

Posted by Serpico on Thursday, Sep 8, 2011 7:45 PM (EDT):

Rover -

No difference between Santa Claus and Jesus? That statement was ironic given the complaints made by the atheists here that Cronin has so distorted and misrepresented atheism that they think he’s just lying about ever being an atheist. Should we conclude that you’re not really interested in understanding (as you claimed) and that you’re just lying for your cause? Or maybe you’re just an atheist troll having a little fun with the Catholics? ;-)

Listen, I’m sorry you and your son were apparently so traumatized when you found out Santa isn’t real. Believe it or not, I was really ticked when I found out that he wasn’t real, either and thought, “why the heck would anyone intentionally make me believe someone like this exists when they know perfectly well that he doesn’t and never did?” I still think it’s a bad idea. That’s why I told my kids the true, universally accepted, historical story of St. Nicholas (although most kids don’t have the extreme reaction you did and can still fathom the difference between Santa and Jesus.)

If you really want to understand the difference between Santa and Jesus, then read “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by N.T. Wright:

You also previously made some statements about suffering that come down to the age old argument: if God is all-good and all-powerful, then why does he allow suffering? That also appears to have had a significant impact on you.

If you really want to understand the answer to that question (the answer is much more than just “God knows the reason”, btw), then I suggest you read these articles/books to help you, for a start. You have a defective understanding of what suffering is and what it is not.

In my reading of him, Cronin’s examining what he believes to be the underlying logical and philosophical assumptions and implications of materialist atheism - whether or not the atheist realizes and acknowledges them or not. And he’s on part 2 right now. So there’s more to come. You might consider the possibility that you’re missing something, not comprehending the arguments entirely or that future material may answer some of your complaints. To publicly suggest that Cronin is just lying at this point strikes me as, at the very least, a bit rash.

I wrote, “However, I did find it interesting that you act as though your version of atheism is the correct one. Is there an official, atheist authority you can point me to to confirm that your definition of it is the right one and the others are wrong?”

You replied, “How have I done so? I haven’t claimed it. I haven’t even implied it.”

My point was that, in previous comments, you’ve gone on at some length about what atheism excludes and what it includes. But I don’t see the authority or justification to establish the boundaries you set. For instance, you’ve stated that people who don’t believe in God for largely emotional reasons aren’t atheists. (Personally, I think you’re begging the question there - and I agree with Oregon that rover seems like a classic case of the emotional atheist. Also, this article doesn’t comport with your definition that excludes certain people as atheists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism). You also stated that being an atheist means not believing in a hierarchy of life - that human beings are no better than anything else.

Although you’ve given parameters like those above, at other times you’ve asserted that atheism solely means that one doesn’t believe in God, nothing more: “Atheism is about not believing in gods. That’s it…When I say I’m an atheist, I’m not saying very much.” So it’s not clear if you think atheism is ONLY not believing God, or if there are other requirements for one to be an atheist under your personal definition.

Posted by rover serton on Thursday, Sep 8, 2011 4:28 PM (EDT):

Oregon,

A very pretty analogy.

Not very useful since I see no evidence of a creator.

If I showed you my Atheist bible to “point to for your proof”, would you consider it any more proof than I do yours? I suspect not.

Well, I’ll read the comments till they close but I’m not going to comment anymore. Thanks all for the thoughts and insights,

Eric Dutton,
You say you don’t recognize Mr. Cronin’s version of atheism because it doesn’t match up with your own understanding, and thereby implying that his whole argument is wrong. Sounds a lot like the same criticism that (sadly) goes on among the different Christian denominations doesn’t it? But you don’t even have an atheist bible to point to for your proof, so it ends up sounding pretty arrogant on your part to be the authority on what this non-monolithic atheism is.

For my argument I’m going to say that you never really understood Christianity because if you had understood it the way I do you never would have become an atheist. Therefore any argument you might make against it or against the existence of God has no merit since you are operating from a mistaken understanding to begin with.

This line of reasoning makes little sense and gets no one anywhere but where they started from.

Posted by oregon on Thursday, Sep 8, 2011 2:26 PM (EDT):

Rover,
Consider this analogy to illustrate what I mean about God being outside the limitations of the world as we know it.

Imagine the world as a massive mosaic made up of billions of pieces in all different shapes and colors. Now imagine yourself as one piece of that mosaic. All you can see are the few pieces that are directly around you. Depending on your location you may see some pieces that are beautiful to look at and others that seem dull or even ugly. As a picture it may make little sense. If you don’t even grasp that you are part of a mosaic that forms a picture it makes even less sense.

Now imagine that God is the artist who sees the entire mosaic and knows that every piece has been perfectly placed to make a picture more beautiful than anything you could ever imagine. You are a small but infinitely important piece of that mosaic which God has selected and has shaped and placed just so. Although you are an important piece all on your own, you are even more important as a part of the whole. Those who die and go to heaven will see the entire mosaic and know that all that has happened has been made perfect. Have faith in God to polish and shape you and place you in the perfect spot in His picture.

Posted by rover serton on Thursday, Sep 8, 2011 11:52 AM (EDT):

Oregon,

I will ignore the personal attack, but you make an interesting statement. “No one can begin to understand anything about God (including that He doesn’t exist) until they can begin to form a concept of a Being that has none of the limitations of humanity”.

Is this possible? Do I need to form a concept of a Unicorn to know it doesn’t exist?

“none of the limitations of humanity”. I see no evidence OF humanity with your OT god. Slavery, genocide, killing of infants and women, I stand corrected, God has no limitation of humanity.

Now, I’ll stomp off crying. (lol)

Rover.

Posted by Eric Dutton on Thursday, Sep 8, 2011 1:26 AM (EDT):

Serpico wrote:
“You didn’t question whether Cronin was ever an atheist (implying that he’s just lying about that). You questioned whether he really held to the view of atheism that he’s arguing against in these articles. That’s a very different thing than what Jesse W. implied.”

I didn’t say that I was making the same argument as Jesse, just that I was questioning Cronin’s honesty on the same grounds. I’m not that interested in whether Cronin was or wasn’t an atheist. It doesn’t really matter. What matters is how disconnected from reality his argument is. I stand by my assessment of it.

“However, I did find it interesting that you act as though your version of atheism is the correct one.”

How have I done so? I haven’t claimed it. I haven’t even implied it. I haven’t given you an atheist manifesto and said, “He who is not with me is against me.” Cronin isn’t at odds with my version of atheism; he’s at odds with any definition of atheism currently in circulation.
You can try to find little inconsistencies in the margins of my comments if you like. But my claim is that Cronin is assuming a peculiar and irrelevant definition of atheism. I’ve defended that claim. That’s why I’m here. But I haven’t seen anyone here defend Cronin’s essay effectively.

Posted by oregon on Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011 8:00 PM (EDT):

“If I ever met God, he and I would not get along. I’d ask too many questions that he couldn’t answer in a reasonable way. No one can honestly answer “Why did a 2 year old get cancer, suffer greatly and die” and give god any credit. Appologists cling to lousy answers “God knows why he did it”. Sorry, not good enough. I would not respect your god for what he has been accused of doing in the bible.

Rover.”

Rover, I can’t help but get a certain mental picture whenever I read your posts. I see an angry little boy who picks up his toys and stomps off home crying after yelling at God that He doesn’t play fair. You have obviously been hurt badly and can’t make any sense of it or come to any peace with it and I’m sorry for you.

No one can begin to understand anything about God (including that He doesn’t exist) until they can begin to form a concept of a Being that has none of the limitations of humanity (physical, emotional, mental) or of the material world (matter, energy, space, time). We can’t even create a copy of a single celled life form despite having identified the blueprint and raw materials, Why would any rational, logical person expect that we can have any understanding of the big picture of creation and the meaning of life as God intends it for us when we can’t even create His simplist life form?

It takes humility to believe in God (someone so much greater than ourselves we cannot even begin to conceive it) and that is what I most often see lacking in atheistic philosophy. I can’t believe how many will say that if they can’t see proof of something spiritual they won’t believe it as if they are so infinitely wise! Yet in the next breath most will state a ‘belief’ in scientific knowledge that they have no grasp of and don’t have a snowball’s chance in h—l of ever understanding for themselves. I guess that requires a faith in the scientist-gods doesn’t it, despite all the mistakes science has made over time about the nature of things and how they work?

Posted by rover serton on Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011 11:19 AM (EDT):

Serpico,

This is not meant to sound flippant but… You and I both know the story of Santa and Jesus. You believe one but not the other. I don’t believe either.

Here is my problem with Atheists that turn go God. The evidence it would take for me to believe in Santa and Jesus would be about the same. I just don’t see how a person that doesn’t believe in Santa can become a believer.

There are many here that are much smarter than I am. I am looking for what changed his mind.

Rover.

Posted by Serpico on Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011 12:49 AM (EDT):

Rover,

So, you have no real evidence that Cronin is lying about previously being an avowed atheist. But you think he might be lying “for Jesus.”

As the old French saying goes, a man does not look behind the door unless he has stood there himself.

Who knows, maybe he’ll share his conversion story from atheism with us. Personally, I’d love to hear it, too. But, gosh, maybe it would just be more “lies for Jesus.” I mean, you know how those Catholics are. Wink, wink.

Good grief.

Eric,

I just read your argument at the top of the comments. You didn’t question whether Cronin was ever an atheist (implying that he’s just lying about that). You questioned whether he really held to the view of atheism that he’s arguing against in these articles. That’s a very different thing than what Jesse W. implied.

However, I did find it interesting that you act as though your version of atheism is the correct one. Is there an official, atheist authority you can point me to to confirm that your definition of it is the right one and the others are wrong?

Posted by Eric Dutton on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 8:11 PM (EDT):

Serpico wrote:
“Ah, so you think maybe he’s just a sneaky Catholic trying to pull one over on everyone!”

Earlier, I questioned Cronin’s honesty on the same grounds. The reason we doubt his sincerity about his atheism is because he’s describing a way of thinking that is totally alien to us and which we doubt that he ever believed because it’s so absurd.
Suppose I said that I am a former avowed Christian, which I am, and I wrote an essay like this one, where I claimed to tell you what Christians believed, but it sounded unlike any form of Christianity you’d ever heard of. You would assume that either I’m lying, or I was a member of some bizarre cult that bears no resemblance to any kind of Christianity one is likely to encounter today. In fact, you could argue that for me to call this set of beliefs “Christianity” is either a deliberate deception or the result of profound ignorance about the subject.
I don’t think that Cronin is that ignorant; yet, I’m not ready to assume that he’s fully conscious of being deceptive. I think that, for many theists, atheism has become such a foreign idea (yes, even for former “atheists”) that they don’t even see their misrepresentations as lies. They see them as acceptable guesses.
Look, I’m not angry at theists. I try to embrace Socrates’s advice to hope that you’ll lose an argument so that you’ll learn something. But Cronin’s analysis is just silly. It may reassure some theists that they don’t need to take atheists seriously, but that’s doing no one any good. You should count among your enemies anyone who encourages you to underestimate your opponent.

Posted by rover serton on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 7:03 PM (EDT):

Serpico, you write “If he did write about it, it would be interesting to read, but I think we could do without the implication that maybe he’s not being honest about once being an avowed atheist”.

In reading his article, he used being an avowed atheist to gain street cred. If he truely was an atheist, what specifically changed his way of thinking. I think it is a legit question since he brought it up. We could all gain from the insight. He also could be “lying for Jesus” to help change souls. No way of telling either way without evidence.

Posted by Serpico on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 5:55 PM (EDT):

Jesse W - Mr. Cronin “claims” to have been formerly and avowed atheist? :-/ Ah, so you think maybe he’s just a sneaky Catholic trying to pull one over on everyone! LOL I don’t know if he ever wrote anything when he was an atheist or not, but since when does saying you were an avowed anything mean that you wrote articles or essays justifying it? I have friends who are avowed liberals. And if you know them, you’ll get an earful. But they’ve never penned much of anything that I know of.

I don’t see anything in there about having to have written articles or essays.

If he did write about it, it would be interesting to read, but I think we could do without the implication that maybe he’s not being honest about once being an avowed atheist.

Posted by Jesse W on Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 4:55 AM (EDT):

Mr. Cronin—you claim to have been “formerly an avowed atheist”. By “avowed”, I presume you mean that you wrote about your atheism, and attempted to explain and justify it. I’d like to read some of this material. I tried to find examples, but was stymied by how common your name happens to be. Could you (or some other commentator) point me towards some examples of your previous atheist essays?

Posted by Jim Sanders on Sunday, Sep 4, 2011 11:24 AM (EDT):

Read the first part and liked it, too. Looking forward to the rest of the series. It’s very interesting and encouraging to read an article like this from a former avowed atheist. It was a real work of God’s grace to open his mind, heart and eyes. And I appreciate that he’s helping Catholics to see that the intellectualism of the atheists isn’t what it appears to be. Like Protestants who try to use the Bible against the Catholic Church (it’s our book), the atheist tries to use reason against God (reason and truth is God’s).

It’s a bit like this story many of us have heard:

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”

“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God.

“Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

“Well, that’s interesting. Show me.”

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.

“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.”

Posted by Serpico on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 10:10 PM (EDT):

I think some people here are failing to understand that Cronin was a fully committed atheist for most of his life. He’s not writing as a life-long Catholic, from the outside. He lived it and was committed to it.

Posted by DcH on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 4:15 PM (EDT):

“These people believe in the basic idea of materialism, but they fail to think things through and they often live inconsistent with their undeveloped beliefs.”

Well, it more like we noticed the observable universe, and other data, does NOT match the scribbles and gibberush of bronze age people’s myths found in the Bible.
We’ve learned alot by not restricting ourselves to one fixed dataset (the bible) and by adding new data as it is uncovered.
We did not observe a galaxy until under 100 years ago - now we have seen 100 Billion of them - which goes unmentioned in the bible. Dinosaurs - not mentioned. Gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong nuclear force, chemistry, quantum electro dymanmics - all not in the bible - the bible is just useless these fundemental insights into how the universe works. Bits of wisdom and parables - yes - it has a lot of that, but so what.

It is up to theists to PROVE the extraordinary claims of Genesis, Noah, Adam and Eve, the talking snake, angels, a dude living in a fish for a week,..etc. I am free to reject them in the complete absence of data.

Posted by Scotty from Oakland on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 1:34 PM (EDT):

@CATHOLICCLAN:
“Science long ago absolutely disproved the concept of spontaneous generation (a strange non-scientific medieval idea), yet atheists have clung to the concept of spontaneous generation of life as the bedrock of their belief in how life came about on earth and the universe. This non scientific idea has never been experimentally tested or even been remotely posited in a reasonable scientific theory, yet all atheists believe it, and think they are very scientific in doing so.”
Actually what was disproved was the theory that life always comes from decaying organic matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Spontaneous_generation
“Here is my proof:
“1. All scientific theory, procedure and knowledge is founded on the absolute principle of cause and effect. “
Not exactly true. It is true when time exists (although some quantum mechanics interpretations have issue with this), but since time (as a component of spacetime) seems to break down close to the singularity of the big bang, then time gets thrown out. Without time, there is no “before” and therefore no causality. The universe as a whole then, seems to be a special case.
“2. The universe is finite. Also, all measurements and calculations heavily indicate that the universe had a beginning as a singularity some billions of years ago and that the matter of the universe is moving at a trajectory and speed that no force inside the material universe will stop it.”
Ok, you just said the universe was finite, and then you said the expansive of the universe was infinite. Problem.
“Therefore the singular beginning of the universe is unrepeatable from a material stand point.”
There are a number of hypotheses that assert new universes are being created from within our own, such as inside of black holes (also singularities).
“3. Given number 1. And number 2., the only reasonable (logical) conclusion is that some force outside of, and more powerful than, the material Universe, ‘Caused’ the universe.”
Wow. Even if 1 and 2 were true, your conclusion is sheer conjecture.
“4. A cause is separate from it’s effect by definition.”
You might want to look up Hawking’s No Boundary proposal. Good intro is here: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bound.html
“5. All psuedo-scientific ideas that are even more outlandish than the belief in God, and equally unprovable (such as multiple dimensions, or string theory), are no more scientific than Theism.”
Actually multiple dimensions have ways to be shown correct. It is entirely possible the Large Hadron Collider could show evidence of this within the next few months.
“These non science based ideas cannot be tested or even realistically theorized about, and therefore require just as much faith to believe in as does belief in a divine being who created the universe.”http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/ScienceFaith.htm

Posted by cowalker on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 12:24 PM (EDT):

CATHOLICCLAN:

“2. The universe is finite. Also, all measurements and calculations heavily indicate that the universe had a beginning as a singularity some billions of years ago and that the matter of the universe is moving at a trajectory and speed that no force inside the material universe will stop it. Therefore the singular beginning of the universe is unrepeatable from a material stand point.”

I don’t think we’ve done enough repeatable experiments with universes to take your statements grouped under number 2 as proven. For example, there are theories that numerous universes “bud” off of existing universes. Those with sustainable constants survive and those with constants that conflict do not. We cannot generalize reliably about universes when we have only a tiny amount of experience with one to base such generalizations on.

“3. Given number 1. And number 2., the only reasonable (logical) conclusion is that some force outside of, and more powerful than, the material Universe, ‘Caused’ the universe.”

Since I do not think that the assumptions in 2 are proven, I consider 3 to be only a possibility. Certainly we cannot prove it is impossible.

“5. All psuedo-scientific ideas that are even more outlandish than the belief in God, and equally unprovable (such as multiple dimensions, or string theory), are no more scientific than Theism. These non science based ideas cannot be tested or even realistically theorized about, and therefore require just as much faith to believe in as does belief in a divine being who created the universe.”

Whoa there. Why is a (currently) untestable scientific hypothesis more outlandish than a (by definition) untestable supernatural hypothesis? You’re making a double assumption here. You’re making the assumption that there can be no scientific explanation, and that therefore there has to be a supernatural explanation. You can’t prove the non-existence of a possible scientific explanation for the universe any more than you can prove the non-existence of a God.

“6. It is reasonable to assume that because something outside the universe must have caused it to come into existence (see 1 and 2 above), then that Cause exists such that it is outside the material universe (see 4) which we are in, and therefore cannot be measured, sensed or affected in any material way with forces inside the universe, since by definition, it would not be a part of the the universe which it caused.

“The existence of God, is truly the most reasonable conclusion, given what we know.”

No. The existence of a Creator that is outside the universe and apart from the matter and energy phenomena we observe in our universe is a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved. By defining it as non-measurable and wholly unconnected to the forces of our universe, it is by definition non-provable. Somehow believers leap from the unprovable hypothesis of a creator to the existence of a Magic Person Creator who experiences selected human emotions, such as love, mercy, anger, purpose, lust, humor, jealousy, masochism or ennui. They also make the assumption that this Person is obsessed with humans, and is wounded to the core when a human ignores its existence. And then they call string theory outlandish.

Rilke’s Granddaughter: “Oh, and Br Matthew Schneider? Yes, that’s a laugh. Again, an utter strawman, but I can laugh at your apparent inability to understand atheists.”

Actually, I wrote this a while back as the creed of scientism which I did not include in my previous post. Obviously, scientism is a certain form of atheism which you evidently don’t ascribe to.

My main point there and here was not to refute atheism point for point but to show, via humor, that atheists are dogmatic as us theists. I think a good portion of the posts here prove that. In that sense, I guess I understand you a little.

If you consider that proof of God, you have left out something, like any evidence.

If God wants me to believe, he knows how to do it.

What ties this “creation” to your specific god other than “You will have no Gods before me” commandment? (notice, God doesn’t consider himself singular, just most important)

Rover.

Posted by AtlantaAtheist on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 8:29 AM (EDT):

“To this Church, the ultimate and the final, real reality of these aspects of human experience are simply the product of neural activity, electronic impulses that are only and completely biochemical, the product of matter and energy.”

Electronic is not the word you’re looking for.

“When morality and reason are matters of biochemical activity alone, morality and reason can provide no real basis for law or for government.”

This is a common refrain in anti-atheist arguments, that objectivity dictates that morality is a product of a non-supernatural phenomena. Since you know there is mortality you can therefore conclude that the empirical view on morality is wrong. If morality is indeed an emergent property of biochemical processes, and let us say for arguments sake that this is true, it does not mean that morality is false or an illusion. It means that morality, even Christian’s morality,is governed by a natural system. A scientific explanation of morality and other aspects of human experience does not preclude that these experiences and believes are “an illusion”. Empiricism and scientific models offer an alternative explanation, an alternative descriptive framework, for these phenomena. Science does not preclude their objectivity.

Posted by NixManes on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 8:26 AM (EDT):

It’s very sad when a person thinks they’ve discovered some “logical” fallacy about not believing in magic.

“For us as human beings, this means all thought, all emotion, all reason, logic and common sense are not actually real.”

This very early claim in this writer’s diatribe will stop anyone from reading further because it is garbage. The writer makes a massively huge leap trying to make a connection that’s simply not there. Anything from this point is pointless.

I think I’ll stick with reason and logic. Myth and superstition are so Middle Ages. We have better information now.

Posted by CATHOLICCLAN on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 3:43 AM (EDT):

Hello Atheists,

Here is a proof of theism, and disproof of atheism using science and reason.

First as a side issue.
Science long ago absolutely disproved the concept of spontaneous generation (a strange non-scientific medieval idea), yet atheists have clung to the concept of spontaneous generation of life as the bedrock of their belief in how life came about on earth and the universe….. Not very reasonable. This non scientific idea has never been experimentally tested or even been remotely posited in a reasonable scientific theory, yet all atheists believe it, and think they are very scientific in doing so.

Here is my proof:

1. All scientific theory, procedure and knowledge is founded on the absolute principle of cause and effect. Every effect is caused by something in the material Universe. If this were not so, or only sometimes True, then all scientific theories, experiments and knowledge could be validly questioned. We could validly ask a question like “does light sometimes spontaneously appear with no cause?”. This of course is a scientific absurdity.
2. The universe is finite. Also, all measurements and calculations heavily indicate that the universe had a beginning as a singularity some billions of years ago and that the matter of the universe is moving at a trajectory and speed that no force inside the material universe will stop it. Therefore the singular beginning of the universe is unrepeatable from a material stand point.
3. Given number 1. And number 2., the only reasonable (logical) conclusion is that some force outside of, and more powerful than, the material Universe, ‘Caused’ the universe.
4. A cause is separate from it’s effect by definition.
5. All psuedo-scientific ideas that are even more outlandish than the belief in God, and equally unprovable (such as multiple dimensions, or string theory), are no more scientific than Theism. These non science based ideas cannot be tested or even realistically theorized about, and therefore require just as much faith to believe in as does belief in a divine being who created the universe. Alternatively, some of the so called scientific theories just beg the question (eg. Maybe life on earth came from meteors….which begs the question of where that life came from…)
6. It is reasonable to assume that because something outside the universe must have caused it to come into existence (see 1 and 2 above), then that Cause exists such that it is outside the material universe (see 4) which we are in, and therefore cannot be measured, sensed or affected in any material way with forces inside the universe, since by definition, it would not be a part of the the universe which it caused.

The existence of God, is truly the most reasonable conclusion, given what we know.

Posted by GKCS on Friday, Sep 2, 2011 3:22 AM (EDT):

Beautiful writing. You expressed what’s going on with great eloquence and force. Thank you.

Posted by bob on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 11:46 PM (EDT):

Many Christians here seem unaware of the Euthypro argument. Perhaps it would educate them to read up on it. The fact is that, if there’s an ‘objective’ morality, the Church doesn’t have it.Its 19 century support of the most heinous evil in history…slavery…proves that. How you could ignore slavery while proclaiming that you possess ‘objective morality’ belies your argument

Posted by bob on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 11:41 PM (EDT):

Matt you’re wrong. The OP made a claim, that atheists cause women to have abortions. That’s nonsense. It’s a lie. Christian women have abortions for a number of reasons, none of them to do with atheism.

Posted by Eric Dutton on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 11:20 PM (EDT):

Lea S.,
Atheism is about not believing in gods. That’s it. It isn’t a system of morality. It doesn’t tell you what TO believe. A lot of people who believe in God tie their morality and their understanding of the universe and their place in it to their belief in God. Atheists don’t. But that isn’t the same as saying that they don’t have any sense of morality.
When I say I’m an atheist, I’m not saying very much. I’m not telling you anything else about what I believe. Now, you’ll be able to guess SOME things with a little more accuracy; we’re probably more likely to be liberal, for example. But this isn’t a rule. Ayn Rand was an atheist but hardly a liberal.
What seems to happen when theists think about atheists is that they just imagine a theist and subtract God. Naturally, this creates a bizarre character. For example, a common assumption about atheists is that they think they are the most important thing in the universe. This is because many religions have a hierarchy that places God at the top, humans underneath (man then woman), and all other creatures under them. Therefore, if you remove God, humans are left on top. But atheists don’t have this hierarchy. There’s nothing about atheism that says you’re better than anything else in the universe. We’re all on an even plane. Atheists are actually more humble (in this sense) than theists.
Atheism is pretty simple. The only reason there’s a word for it is because it’s not common. If it were common, no one would have bothered to attach the “a” to the word “theist.” People would just say, “No, I’m not a theist.”
Articles like the one Mr. Cronin wrote are frustrating because it’s obvious that he hasn’t done the slightest bit of research, but he still feels free to try to explain us to everyone else. He just asked himself what would be left if he subtracted God from his own beliefs and followed that to it’s [semi]logical conclusion. Then he told everyone that that’s who we are. People do this only when they feel contempt for a group of people. And it’s contempt without understanding. This is pretty close to a good definition of bigotry.
I have evidence in HIS WORDS that there is something seriously wrong with his thinking. The only thing he has on which to base his conclusions about us is a long, twisted inference pulled from a misunderstanding of a simple non-belief.
Yes, he claims he was once an atheist. But his definition of atheism seems so bizarre, so unlikely, that it’s hard to believe it’s even close to what he ever believed. I’ve know a lot of Christians who said they used to be atheists. But when you press them about this, they’ll describe how they were rebellious, arrogant, lost, angry, bitter, licentious, and resentful. That’s not atheism, but that’s what they decide atheism is, once they’ve been saved. Being troubled and rebellious is very different from atheism. Atheism should be boring. You just think about your life, other people’s lives, nature, time, the universe, yourself, and you think, “It doesn’t seem like God fits into this very well,” and then you get on with doing what humans do: living, working, loving, moralizing, arguing, screwing up, feeling good, feeling bad, feeling bored, thinking, and re-thinking. Some people think it takes a god for us to do all of those things. Some people don’t. I’m one of the latter.

Posted by rover serton on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 10:32 PM (EDT):

Lea S.

You write “You can argue that emotions, love, concern for fellow man is just a Darwinian response to help along the survival of the fittest somehow, but this does not seem to either account for the desire to help weaker people or to provide any real purpose to life in general.”

Here is an atheist point of view.

Love, concern for same species is not specific to Humans. Many animals exhibit the same responses to injured of the same herd. Elephants, apes, musk oxen etc. Man is not unique in his kindness nor sadly his joy in killing upon occasion. “Purpose of life” is a funny statement. There isn’t one! Life is what is is and what you make it, then you die. Even your belief in an afterlife is actually quite pointless also since, after you die, you go and praise god for eternity. Not making, thinking, doing anything but just saying “Thanks God”. My non-existence for eternity looks pretty good compaired to yours. If I ever met God, he and I would not get along. I’d ask too many questions that he couldn’t answer in a reasonable way. No one can honestly answer “Why did a 2 year old get cancer, suffer greatly and die” and give god any credit. Appologists cling to lousy answers “God knows why he did it”. Sorry, not good enough. I would not respect your god for what he has been accused of doing in the bible.

To address Lea’s first point, the article is a strawman because it presents (sans the rather crude irrational metaphor of “church”) a complete worldview that only a vanishingly small faction of atheists would subscribe to. Atheists lack belief in gods (just as you do), but that’s all they share. Some are humanists, some belief in spirits and reincarnation, some are fierce materializes - though none would aver that our emotions are “illusion”. So the post does not present any actual atheist beliefs.

A strawman, in other words.

Posted by John on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:20 PM (EDT):

These articles, first by Jen Fulwiler, and now by Frank are just silly and will surely invite chuckles from our evil materialist brothers and sisters.

The thing is, I’m on the Church’s side. But these types of whitewash articles do no good but reinforce one position against another.

If Christians, all of us Catholics and Protestants, wish to have a positive effect on society I recommend we live our lives according to what we believe, offer up the world at Mass and reverently receive Communion.

Christ said he came so we may have life and have it more abundantly. If we have that then others will want it to because as people we are meant for truth and beauty. Others will come but that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

The fact is this: people can live their daily lives and get along quite well without religion. Our lives must be an example of the joy that surpasses all understanding. It’s not about proof because there is none other than lived experiences.

Posted by Scotty from Oakland on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 7:32 PM (EDT):

@ Serpico: Actually he does appear to be saying all atheists are eliminative materialists. Take a look at the generalization of the last two paragraphs of this article. In any case, why write an article that would apply to such a narrow segment of atheists (potentially none) anyway? Also, I think you can look at my previous post for my notions of objective morality. All the evidence shows that it comes from naturalist origins. I don’t see any evidence for divine origins. Just my opinion though - atheists don’t have a catechism we all follow.
@ Lea S: Actually evolution does have reasons why we help weaker people. Do a search for “evolutionary altruism” if you are interested. We follow a moral code because it is hardwired into us. I don’t think that makes it any less important. In regards to purpose, biology provides purposes. We like to explore, we are curious, we make friendships etc. for survival purposes. Past biology, we can define our own purposes. Personally I have plenty of purpose in my life, and much of it (my career included) is to make the world a better place.

Posted by Lea S. on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 6:36 PM (EDT):

Many of the atheists commented on here (not all—Scotty and cowalker have given good responses) have been outright indignant over this article, declaring this in no uncertain terms. Never before have I seen the use of “straw man” pop up this many times. But few are outlining WHY the article is supposedly misrepresenting atheists. They say “I don’t believe this ‘materialism’ thing and don’t know anyone who does,” and “You don’t understand atheists at all,” but then don’t clarify what atheism is. Just shouting “STRAW MEN!!1” without providing something at least approaching a counter-argument is weak.

You guys have to understand this: from a Catholic position, a world without God is merely material, and a merely material world appears purposeless. You can argue that emotions, love, concern for fellow man is just a Darwinian response to help along the survival of the fittest somehow, but this does not seem to either account for the desire to help weaker people or to provide any real purpose to life in general. Why bother to follow any sense of moral code if all is to turn to dust anyhow? For Catholics, indeed any believer in God, it genuinely doesn’t seem to add up.

Thus, some sort of intelligent response would be helpful. If this article is truly a “post to the entire Internet” then your comments are a golden opportunity to enlighten the entire Internet as to the truths behind atheism.

Posted by mk on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 5:51 PM (EDT):

RevWubby,

I will GLADLY accept the truth of a god (or your One True God) if you prefer, when you show me why he is any more likely than the Hindu gods (who are reportedly still performing miracles to this day) or the Muslim god (who is reportedly still performing miracles to this day) or the Protestant god (who is willing to talk directly to me and is reportedly still performing miracles to this day) or the… 1 million gods. Or none.

Maybe you are unaware of this, but that Muslim God that is still performing miracles today? And that Protestant God Who is doing the same? They are the very same One True God that us Catholics believe in. The only argument you have there is the Hindu Gods…and the argument is weak. Their “gods” by virtue of their multitude cannot be the ONE True anything, let alone the ONE True God as there is an “S” at the end of the word god.

Posted by Serpico on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 5:47 PM (EDT):

Scotty writes, “I worry for you if the only reason you don’t “steal, murder, lie, [and] rape” is because you “fear offending God.”

Scotty, do you believe that there is such thing as objective morality? Do you believe that some things are truly wrong or right?

If you do believe that, then please explain how, from an atheistic perspective, you arrive at notions of objective morality.

Conversely, if you don’t believe that, then for you there is no real “reason” not to steal, murder and lie other than a completely subjective (and objectively meaningless, in the strict sense of the term) one. The idea of a “reason” not to do something or to do something is essentially an illusion in this context. You’re just doing or not doing something because your neurons fired in a particular way.

IMO, the very concept of sentience is antithetical to the materialist atheist philosophy. There’s no room for self-awareness…I “exist.” Cogito, ergo sum. Sorry, Decartes, but thought is merely a material phenomenon - it is merely electrical impulses firing down a line of synapses and neurons.

OTOH, the Catholic recognizes that we are an integrated duality: material and spiritual. Thought is not identical with electrical impulses. Electrical impulses are a necessary element of human thought, they are evidence of thought, but they are not themselves thoughts. And the fact that I am *aware* of my thoughts further augers against the purely materialistic understanding of thought.

Posted by Serpico on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 5:26 PM (EDT):

@ Scotty:

In response to Cronin’s article, you wrote, “Little confused here; are you stating that all atheists are eliminative materialists? Since atheism is just a disbelief in a god, you don’t have to be a materialist.”

No, he’s not stating that. Read his first article again, for instance:

“For **most of these** atheistic heralds’ foundational and crucial belief is that the only real dimension to the universe is the tangible one, the world of the senses, the physical world. This is why their manipulation of science is critical to their case for atheism. **For them**, if things aren’t physically observable with our senses or with the aid of technological advances or through mathematical extrapolation, then those things do not exist.”

Posted by Tim Campbell on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 5:18 PM (EDT):

Horsecrap. Condescending, insulting, ignorant horsecrap. Materialism is simply the idea that everything is either matter/energy or (PAY ATTENTION PLEASE) DEPENDENT UPON MATTER/ENERGY. This latter half of the definition means that thoughts, ideas, concepts, art, music, reason, etc. are DEPENDENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF MATTER OR ENERGY for their own existence.

Atheism is simply the unwillingness to believe in tribal gods. Doesn’t matter whether you are promoting Baal, Zeus, Yahweh, or Jesus as “the Christ”, we do not accpet your arguments in favor of these imaginary beings, we do not accept the nonsense that you promote as “evidence” for these magic beings’ existence, and we consider you “sacred” books and doctrines to be anything but.

We see ALL human religions as being human-made. That is, made up, produced, and invented by fallible and ignorant humans without any help from any magic beings whatsoever.

You wish to believe that a magic Jew came back to life after walking on water and making fish sandwiches for thousands, go right ahead. You want to believe that a Jewish lunatic was not lying when he claimed to have spent the weekend cruising hte Med inside a big fish, go right ahead.

We do not, and we can still be good, moral, and productive human beings.

Posted by Yeah, Right on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 5:15 PM (EDT):

Matt,

Word salad, that does nothing to address there being any evidence for your beliefs.

“Faith and reason complement each other”. No they don’t. Faith is based on reason. You have faith because you find a compelling reason to have/maintain it. Faulty-reasoning but reasoning none the less.

Posted by Steve B on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 5:07 PM (EDT):

Using the term “church” itself implies a believe in something that is not material.
Matthew Schneider’s post is a direct insult to the Holy Trinity, the Blessed Virgin and the Incarnation. His post is hardly laughable.

Posted by rsm on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 4:58 PM (EDT):

John Flynn:

Morality as many religious folks define it is deciding right and wrong based on an accountability to some super-natural being, and that is the touchstone of what is good and bad; what is acceptable in civilized society. It boils down to, be good and do what I say or get spanked. That is so simplistic and empty it is laughable.

Perhaps a better measuring stick is to examine the harm done when following a rule, and aiming to avoid the most harm or suffering. What causes harm is evil what does not cause harm is good.

I would suggest that you think about why you believe the things you do. Simply stating “I believe this because God said so” is empty and meaningless unless you can define God. What if God were a heartless and cruel being who insisted upon people eating babies and murdering the innocent (aside from the fact that these thing have been done in the name of various gods), would you consider that God to be the definition of good?

Instead of telling everyone what you think, why don’t you tell them how you think and why you think the things you do? Give good hard reasons. That you read it in the bible/koran/torah/vedas/etc. isn’t a good reason.

Posted by cowalker on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 4:55 PM (EDT):

David Carlon: “If we are nothing more than brute animals it is only logical and reasonable to steal, murder, lie, rape, and commit every abomination because it is inherently good for a brute animal to self actualize itself by preying on the weak, gullible and stupid.”

You are aware that, just for example, wolves, elephants and apes do not behave in the way you suggest is logical and reasonable for atheists to behave. For the most part, they cooperate to survive. Like these animals, humans do best in communities. There is evidence that tendencies toward altruism, empathy and fairness are to varying degrees “hard-wired” into the human brain and developed for better or worse by human interactions during development. Normal people learn to enjoy being part of a community where standards of behavior allow them to experience better lives by cooperating rather than competing to the death for resources. It’s what works for humans.

Posted by Matt on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 4:43 PM (EDT):

bob, your 2nd comment is an argumentum ad hominem. It doesn’t matter in this instance what other Christian women do.
And many atheists-I won’t say all but many that I’ve heard/read-do reduce everything to biochemistry. I was listening to a podcast, and the pyschologist was explaining how certain parts of the brain react in certain crisis situations (this one was ‘would you smother your coughing baby to save the village?)He even explained what we percieve as emotions are caused by this part of the brain, and we reason through this situation with this part of the brain. And my response is that all we know is that neurons are moving. We can’t explain what is going on based on brain scans. It requires language to explain what’s going on at the time of activity, which produces complications because language can be ambiguous and different for everyone. Also, some argue emotions are just perceptions, and nothing that we are innately capable of but not due to biochemistry. There’s more to us than biochemical activity.
Faith and reason complement each other. Blessed John Paul 2 wrote the encyclical Fides et Ratio on this topic.
We have an innate ability to reason as well. These things all complement each other.

Posted by Yeah, Right on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 4:39 PM (EDT):

“what do you believe about good and evil, right and wrong, and can you defend your beliefs in a philosophically coherent fashion? I’m all ears.”

What belief is there to defend? That I don’t fined reasonably compelling evidence that there exists a supernatural deity?

Posted by bob on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 3:33 PM (EDT):

Dave Carlon seems to like to lie. Blatant lies. The fact is it is CHRISTIAN WOMEN who have abortions. Abortion rates are highest in the bible belt states. So if you’re going to LIE about atheists, do it in a less blatant manner!

Posted by bob on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 3:26 PM (EDT):

TRS tries to rephrase the ontological argument of Anselm, forgetting that love is a PROPERTY of existence, NOT existence itself. Things have properties. A living being can love but you can’t prove that love means loving unicorns exist. Such nonsense on the part of believers!

Posted by John Flynn on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 3:03 PM (EDT):

You’re preaching to the choir, Frank. I’m already a member.
If you want to reach the atheists, you’re going to have to change your approach altogether.
But for the atheists in the group, my question is this: what do you believe about good and evil, right and wrong, and can you defend your beliefs in a philosophically coherent fashion? I’m all ears.

Posted by Ted on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 2:38 PM (EDT):

Frank, insulting my intelligence isn’t the way to get the job done. You should be ashamed of yourself for composing this rubbish.

Posted by Scotty from Oakland on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 2:27 PM (EDT):

TG/Pete: this is not just a post on your forums. Since the webmaster has elected to have this indexed by search engines (yes, they do have a choice), it is a post to the entire internet. Atheist or not, I am still human, and it is upsetting to see misconceptions or outright falsehoods spread about my beliefs. . @David: So only atheists practice abortion? News to me. Also, I worry for you if the only reason you don’t “steal, murder, lie, [and] rape” is because you “fear offending God”. I would fear to have you as a neighbor.

Posted by Pete on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 2:09 PM (EDT):

TG,
I also wonder how that works. Maybe just do a google search and type in “atheist” and see where it takes you that day? Get here and then get worked up enough to register? I’m Catholic and I’ve never done that, but I guess it’s possible?

Posted by Scotty from Oakland on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 1:37 PM (EDT):

Frank, you assert that reason cannot exist in a materialist universe. A non-materialist universe does not necessary require God. So, to turn your argument around, what is your rationale that reason requires God? By the way, although I disagree with your argument, I did enjoy the writing.

Posted by David Carlon on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 1:34 PM (EDT):

I for one am fed up with these so called “intellectual” atheists, as there is no hope for educated idiots. One however, must be on perpetual watch because these brutes have a history of pogroms… and their longest running genocide now exceeds ONE BILLION babies lost to abortion since 1917. Morality and atheism is an oxymoron. If one does not believe in or fear offending God why bother being kind, compassionate or holy? Simply being good for the benefit of a corrupt society makes no sense… If we are nothing more than brute animals it is only logical and reasonable to steal, murder, lie, rape, and commit every abomination because it is inherently good for a brute animal to self actualize itself by preying on the weak, gullible and stupid. Lets not waste precious time debating these brutes. It’s time to dust ones shoes and move on…

Posted by Dakota on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 1:20 PM (EDT):

Love is a choice the willing of the good for another. It is not a feeling not a mere emotion, you can not like someone but love them. If God is love then how much He wills our good.

Posted by TG on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 1:07 PM (EDT):

I’m Catholic but my husband is a true athiest, who would never think of reading or caring what anyone said on National Catholic Register. (He also believes in religious freedom.) I wonder what the motive is for athiests that comment here.

Posted by TRS on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 12:10 PM (EDT):

The few atheists I know actually have a sense of morality… and they assert that it’s better to do right because you know it’s right and you choose to… than to do right because the flying spaghetti monster in the sky tells you too… or to please the flying spaghetti monster. Which to me is funny because I don’t choose to right solely to please God, or because I’m afraid of going to hell. I do right because it is right… and right glorifies God.

what I do find amusing… is the Atheist’s suggestion that God isn’t real because He can’t be seen or felt or smelled, in any tangible way. So when I asked one how she knew her husband loved her… after all, you can’t see or feel or find love in any tangible way…. she went on to explain how stupid I was because her husband SHOWS her that he loves her… she FEELS love…. she SEES that he loves her——all this she defends without realizing… yes these are things she KNOWS even though there is not tangible, scientific evidence—- KIND OF LIKE GOD and GOD’s LOVE wouldn’t you say?!?!?!

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
I always wonder… if you don’t believe in God, how can you believe in love?

I’d suggest that if your ACTUAL goal is “...to appeal to atheists’ personal human experience, the experience they do not accept. And, to inform them of their error and persuade them to consider the truth of the Catholic faith…” then beginning by creating an absurdist strawman in which no atheist believes and in which no atheist will recognize himself is rather… stupid. Most of the bloggers here seem to suffer from this disease: that the only good way to treat atheists is with mockery, insult, and caricature. Shea does it; Fulweiler (sp?) does it, etc.

I’ve never seen a group so consistently shoot themselves in the foot.

Oh, and Br Matthew Schneider? Yes, that’s a laugh. Again, an utter strawman, but I can laugh at your apparent inability to understand atheists.

This is a very common theme with Catholics; I’ve even seen it with Bob Barron, who’s no intellectual slouch.

You people really don’t understand atheists. At all.

Posted by cowalker on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 11:50 AM (EDT):

“For our sensations of love that prompt our loving behavior have no actual reality. They are merely biochemical events. So, next time you hug your spouse or your children or your friends, remember the real and only reality of that act and that feeling is biochemistry. You are just a lump of matter and energy. And, so are your loved ones, a temporary configuration of the material of the universe.”

So the author’s argument for the existence of a supernatural element in the universe is that biochemical events aren’t “real?” That anything temporary isn’t “real?”

The perception of an experience is a real, physical, biochemical event. An emotion is a real, physical, biochemical event. It is a response to physical events in the environment. Depending on many factors, it will correspond with varying degrees of similarity to biochemical events in the brains of other sentient earth creatures whose senses are registering physical events in the same environment. We have had great success in sharing these perceptions and creating commonly recognized models of our shared environment. The reasoning process is a shared method of interpreting our perceptions. We are wildly successful in common recognition of the reality of our physical experience of the universe. How long would humans have survived in communities without these shared perceptions? We call someone who doesn’t recognize that humans are subject to certain limitations, and have certain physical needs, “insane.”

And by whose definition is a temporary configuration of the material of the universe not “real?” “Temporary” isn’t the same thing as “unreal.” It just isn’t. If you insist that it is, you are re-defining one or both words.

Finally, hatred of the temporary nature of the human condition and the limitation of the universe to matter and energy doesn’t constitute an argument against these things being facts. Proving the non-existence of the supernatural is obviously impossible. But the desire for it to exist isn’t any kind of proof that it does exist.

Posted by Maria on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 11:23 AM (EDT):

I remember when God was irrelevant in my life. I didn’t call myself an atheist. I called myself a humanist. It wasn’t until I had a direct experience of God’s presence and love that my life changed. I don’t know that you can persuade atheists to a belief in God. I think they must experience God in some way.

Posted by DCH on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 10:58 AM (EDT):

No, you really simply have to present positive evidence and data to support your particular god hypothesis. The rest, is details.

As for the rest about morality and good - those are very useful and important human values. Atheists experience those same sorts of life related things described.

“For instance, love no longer exists in a solely material universe. For our sensations of love that prompt our loving behavior have no actual reality. They are merely biochemical events. So, next time you hug your spouse or your children or your friends, remember the real and only reality of that act and that feeling is biochemistry. You are just a lump of matter and energy. And, so are your loved ones, a temporary configuration of the material of the universe.”

We are indeed a temporary configuartion of atoms (all the evidence points that way) - its just the way it is. I can and DO love and care for my follow man (like Jesus would do) even if I suspect I’m a temporary arrangement of matter and energy. I can live with that, it does not bother me to know I am mortal and get a few decades here.

Posted by RevWubby on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 9:52 AM (EDT):

You broke my Irony Meter(tm)!

A Catholic magazine calling out the atheists as being raving dogmatics. Really? Because not 300 years ago it was Catholics murdering people for daring to question church doctrine. Literally murdering them, not metaphorically, mind you, but actually causing death! Protestants and Catholics are STILL killing each other in Ireland to this very day!

I’m sorry your personal morality as an atheist only got as far as “everything is material”, but you seemed to have not giving it enough thought. It’s sad that you took the easy way out and are hoping a super-being will reward you for it. Moral truth is much more complicated a study than the writings of ancient desert nomads, but it’s also MUCH more rewarding. If your morality only takes into account the feelings of invisible creatures, you have failed to understand morality.

This little “Church of the One Truth” name calling is amusing, but you are essentially trying to equate atheism with religion so you can then say “Oh look, they are bad because religion is bad”. My Irony Meter is sobbing in the corner.

Call us whatever you wish, but just provide the clear evidence that some invisible intelligence is at work in the universe and we can all get along fine. And don’t use silly linguistic tricks, like calling things creation and saying it needs a creator, or logical fallacies like assuming anything not explained is explained by a god. This isn’t evidence, it’s intellectual dishonest.

I will GLADLY accept the truth of a god (or your One True God) if you prefer, when you show me why he is any more likely than the Hindu gods (who are reportedly still performing miracles to this day) or the Muslim god (who is reportedly still performing miracles to this day) or the Protestant god (who is willing to talk directly to me and is reportedly still performing miracles to this day) or the… 1 million gods. Or none.

Posted by Mike on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:53 AM (EDT):

Well done! It says it all.

Posted by Mary42 on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:42 AM (EDT):

Thank you, Frank. This is a truly God-inspired Mission for the Catholic Church you give us in this Paragraph:

“As Catholics, it is our job to appeal to atheists’ personal human experience, the experience they do not accept. And, to inform them of their error and persuade them to consider the truth of the Catholic faith, a faith of many truths for life and for living, a faith that validates the human experience in its fullest sense, a faith that edifies the human mind and heart, a faith that brings hope and love into the very heart and society of mankind.”

May your prophetic message find a home in our Hearts and become our new Evangelization Goal.

Posted by bob on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:37 AM (EDT):

Wow. What a case of babbling. Babbling overflow. “Illusion”? “No basis for morality?” Gee. That’s tough. And yet the article, with its subdued tone of hysteria, fails to make a logical case. It’s like saying that the laws of physics (and here, put on your best whining tone), just CAN’T be true, or we’d be able to build horrible bombs!!!! Golly!!!! Holy SMOKES!!!! And yet, just because the consequences are unpleasant, doesn’t make it false. That’s what being an adult is all about. Facing in pleasant truths. And the strawmen in this article! An ARMY of them. Marching forward to defend the One True Church!! Onward Christian Soldiers! Of course, the inherent contradiction in the article…materialist illusions (how can something be BOTH real material AND an illusion?)...never seems to phase Mr. Cronin. NO atheist thinks reality is an illusion. And as Sam Harris and Jerry Coyne have pointed out, there ARE secular reasons for morality not based in religion. I suggest Mr. Cronin get a grip, perhaps learns how to be an adult and maybe, just maybe, he’ll understand that atheism is logical…certainly more logical than the metaphysical impossibility of a resurrected Jesus Christ and other myths. Sheesh!

Posted by guy mcclung on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:35 AM (EDT):

If you believe the One Truth, why tell anyone else? There are no “anyone elses” to tell -there is no way a One Truther can prove the existence of any other person. Actually there are no “persons” because “person” is a concept that includes more than the matter and energy that makes up such an entity. “Person” is logically prior to mind or to body. On the One Truth view, this is not logical, because there is nothing but body. And this is why there is no morality for a One Truther-there is no “other” to respect as an end in himself or herself.

Posted by K C Thomas on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:21 AM (EDT):

The fact that the atheists have desire for truth and that they pursue it means that there is a spark of divine light in them. If they realise that and pursue truth, they will find God

Posted by K C Thomas on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 8:17 AM (EDT):

The desire for truth and the pursuit of the same by atheists means they have a spark of divine light. If they use it they will find God

For a laugh:
We believe in no God,
No Father, No almighty; (Except maybe the inexplicable natural laws)
Creation came from nothing,
All that is seen and that is all. (Except what we can see with microscopes)
We believe in one Lord, hard Science,
the only source of knowledge,
Only proof against the Father, (Excluding all knowledge but science, we deny truths beyond it)
Atom from Atom,
Cell from Cell,
Animal from Animal, (So evolution tells us)
One in truth with Atheism,
Through it we explain all.
For us men and for our knowledge,
It comes forth from universities. (Our centers of mysticism)

(Incline head to nature for next three lines)
By the power of nature,
We were born of the Virgin Organisms,
And became too many.

For the sake of science we can ignore morality: (Actually morality doesn’t exist cause it isn’t scientific)
Man will no longer suffer, die and be buried. (He will be buried, then suffer and die)
On the third attempt we’ll clone a baby;
Stem cells ascend into man,
and seat him above the Father.
Science will come again in “facts”
To judge the moral and the immoral, (Ergo, what advances science = good, religion = bad)
And its kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Scientists,
Our lords, the givers of truth,
who proceed from Atheism and Science.
With Atheism and science
they are worshiped and glorified. (All bow down when a scientist comes on TV to explain something way beyond science because he has “real” knowledge)
They have spoken through reputable scientific journals.
We believe in no holy, trustworthy, and legitimate Church. (Save the Church of scientific discoveries)
We acknowledge no baptism since there is no sin. (Except failing to accept the wisdom of scientists)
We look for the wisdom of professors
And the life on this world alone.
Amen.

Posted by Mal on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 7:00 AM (EDT):

all existence, all life forms, all human experience are simply the product of matter and energy, an effect of the material of the universe

So, these people believe that somehow matter and energy created us. Do they consider matter and energy to be intelligent and that they always existed? Could their creators tell us when time and gravity came into existence - and how?

Posted by Yeah, Right on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 5:40 AM (EDT):

Back in the old days building a straw man was good enough, but now you need a whole straw church? If you really think it’s your job to appeal to “atheists’ personal human experience,the experience they do not accept” it would be a good start to not intentionally misrepresent your target audiences view point. The only thing atheists have in common is that they fail to find compelling evidence for the existence of supernatural deities. Provide compelling evidence for the Catholic Churches claims and your all set. Otherwise your wasting your breath.

Posted by Joseph on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 3:23 AM (EDT):

I love the Church militant! Enjoyably written.

Posted by Yeah, Right on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 2:52 AM (EDT):

“In the Church of the One Truth there are no ceremonies, no sacraments, no saints.” That may be because you *made it up*...perhaps? If you want to reach atheists, you can start by not insulting their intelligence. Your entire piece is based on straw man arguments… Yeah, tell us what those atheists believe some more. Moron.

Posted by Scotty from Oakland on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 1:51 AM (EDT):

Little confused here; are you stating that all atheists are eliminative materialists? Since atheism is just a disbelief in a god, you don’t have to be a materialist. And only some materialists deny the existence of mental states, others think they are quite real. Quantum mechanics has put quite a dent in materialism anyway - can you be a materialist and believe in quantum field theory, for example? Fields are more primary than energy and matter after all. Lots of materialists aren’t even reductionists, for that matter. Not that I want to keep accusing you of straw man arguments every article, but if you ARE implying all atheists are eliminative materialists, then…

Posted by Eric Dutton on Thursday, Sep 1, 2011 12:01 AM (EDT):

This is another attempt to define atheism into absurdity. Everyone who attempts to do this, however, has to distort atheism into something beyond recognition.
I am an atheist. I don’t believe in this caricature of materialism you’ve presented. I don’t know anyone who believes it. I’ve never read anyone who believes it. And, until I read this article, I had never heard of a belief system that even sounded like this.
You seem to assume that because many atheists accept some kind of materialism, they don’t believe in ideas, or that their philosophy entails that they shouldn’t believe in relationships between physical objects, because relationships are abstractions. This is like claiming that, unless you believe that fictional characters actually exist, there’s no reason to read fiction.
I don’t believe you’ve made an honest attempt to understand atheism at all. Yes, I read that you were once an atheist, but I can’t believe that you ever believed anything like what you’ve just described.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.